Cargando…

Cost Utility Analysis of the Cervical Artificial Disc vs Fusion for the Treatment of 2-Level Symptomatic Degenerative Disc Disease: 5-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND: The cervical total disc replacement (cTDR) was developed to treat cervical degenerative disc disease while preserving motion. OBJECTIVE: Cost-effectiveness of this intervention was established by looking at 2-year follow-up, and this update reevaluates our analysis over 5 years. METHODS:...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ament, Jared D., Yang, Zhuo, Nunley, Pierce, Stone, Marcus B., Lee, Darrin, Kim, Kee D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Neurosurgery 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4900425/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26855020
http://dx.doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000001208
_version_ 1782436634243891200
author Ament, Jared D.
Yang, Zhuo
Nunley, Pierce
Stone, Marcus B.
Lee, Darrin
Kim, Kee D.
author_facet Ament, Jared D.
Yang, Zhuo
Nunley, Pierce
Stone, Marcus B.
Lee, Darrin
Kim, Kee D.
author_sort Ament, Jared D.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The cervical total disc replacement (cTDR) was developed to treat cervical degenerative disc disease while preserving motion. OBJECTIVE: Cost-effectiveness of this intervention was established by looking at 2-year follow-up, and this update reevaluates our analysis over 5 years. METHODS: Data were derived from a randomized trial of 330 patients. Data from the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey were transformed into utilities by using the SF-6D algorithm. Costs were calculated by extracting diagnosis-related group codes and then applying 2014 Medicare reimbursement rates. A Markov model evaluated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for both treatment groups. Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the stability of the model. The model adopted both societal and health system perspectives and applied a 3% annual discount rate. RESULTS: The cTDR costs $1687 more than anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) over 5 years. In contrast, cTDR had $34 377 less productivity loss compared with ACDF. There was a significant difference in the return-to-work rate (81.6% compared with 65.4% for cTDR and ACDF, respectively; P = .029). From a societal perspective, the incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) for cTDR was −$165 103 per QALY. From a health system perspective, the ICER for cTDR was $8518 per QALY. In the sensitivity analysis, the ICER for cTDR remained below the US willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 per QALY in all scenarios (−$225 816 per QALY to $22 071 per QALY). CONCLUSION: This study is the first to report the comparative cost-effectiveness of cTDR vs ACDF for 2-level degenerative disc disease at 5 years. The authors conclude that, because of the negative ICER, cTDR is the dominant modality. ABBREVIATIONS: ACDF, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion AWP, average wholesale price CE, cost-effectiveness CEA, cost-effectiveness analysis CPT, Current Procedural Terminology cTDR, cervical total disc replacement CUA, cost-utility analysis DDD, degenerative disc disease DRG, diagnosis-related group FDA, US Food and Drug Administration ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio IDE, Investigational Device Exemption NDI, neck disability index QALY, quality-adjusted life years RCT, randomized controlled trial RTW, return-to-work SF-12, 12-Item Short Form Health Survey VAS, visual analog scale WTP, willingness-to-pay
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4900425
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Neurosurgery
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49004252016-06-28 Cost Utility Analysis of the Cervical Artificial Disc vs Fusion for the Treatment of 2-Level Symptomatic Degenerative Disc Disease: 5-Year Follow-up Ament, Jared D. Yang, Zhuo Nunley, Pierce Stone, Marcus B. Lee, Darrin Kim, Kee D. Neurosurgery Special Article: Editor's Choice BACKGROUND: The cervical total disc replacement (cTDR) was developed to treat cervical degenerative disc disease while preserving motion. OBJECTIVE: Cost-effectiveness of this intervention was established by looking at 2-year follow-up, and this update reevaluates our analysis over 5 years. METHODS: Data were derived from a randomized trial of 330 patients. Data from the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey were transformed into utilities by using the SF-6D algorithm. Costs were calculated by extracting diagnosis-related group codes and then applying 2014 Medicare reimbursement rates. A Markov model evaluated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for both treatment groups. Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the stability of the model. The model adopted both societal and health system perspectives and applied a 3% annual discount rate. RESULTS: The cTDR costs $1687 more than anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) over 5 years. In contrast, cTDR had $34 377 less productivity loss compared with ACDF. There was a significant difference in the return-to-work rate (81.6% compared with 65.4% for cTDR and ACDF, respectively; P = .029). From a societal perspective, the incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) for cTDR was −$165 103 per QALY. From a health system perspective, the ICER for cTDR was $8518 per QALY. In the sensitivity analysis, the ICER for cTDR remained below the US willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 per QALY in all scenarios (−$225 816 per QALY to $22 071 per QALY). CONCLUSION: This study is the first to report the comparative cost-effectiveness of cTDR vs ACDF for 2-level degenerative disc disease at 5 years. The authors conclude that, because of the negative ICER, cTDR is the dominant modality. ABBREVIATIONS: ACDF, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion AWP, average wholesale price CE, cost-effectiveness CEA, cost-effectiveness analysis CPT, Current Procedural Terminology cTDR, cervical total disc replacement CUA, cost-utility analysis DDD, degenerative disc disease DRG, diagnosis-related group FDA, US Food and Drug Administration ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio IDE, Investigational Device Exemption NDI, neck disability index QALY, quality-adjusted life years RCT, randomized controlled trial RTW, return-to-work SF-12, 12-Item Short Form Health Survey VAS, visual analog scale WTP, willingness-to-pay Neurosurgery 2016-02-05 2016-07 /pmc/articles/PMC4900425/ /pubmed/26855020 http://dx.doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000001208 Text en Copyright © 2016 by the Congress of Neurological Surgeons This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially.
spellingShingle Special Article: Editor's Choice
Ament, Jared D.
Yang, Zhuo
Nunley, Pierce
Stone, Marcus B.
Lee, Darrin
Kim, Kee D.
Cost Utility Analysis of the Cervical Artificial Disc vs Fusion for the Treatment of 2-Level Symptomatic Degenerative Disc Disease: 5-Year Follow-up
title Cost Utility Analysis of the Cervical Artificial Disc vs Fusion for the Treatment of 2-Level Symptomatic Degenerative Disc Disease: 5-Year Follow-up
title_full Cost Utility Analysis of the Cervical Artificial Disc vs Fusion for the Treatment of 2-Level Symptomatic Degenerative Disc Disease: 5-Year Follow-up
title_fullStr Cost Utility Analysis of the Cervical Artificial Disc vs Fusion for the Treatment of 2-Level Symptomatic Degenerative Disc Disease: 5-Year Follow-up
title_full_unstemmed Cost Utility Analysis of the Cervical Artificial Disc vs Fusion for the Treatment of 2-Level Symptomatic Degenerative Disc Disease: 5-Year Follow-up
title_short Cost Utility Analysis of the Cervical Artificial Disc vs Fusion for the Treatment of 2-Level Symptomatic Degenerative Disc Disease: 5-Year Follow-up
title_sort cost utility analysis of the cervical artificial disc vs fusion for the treatment of 2-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease: 5-year follow-up
topic Special Article: Editor's Choice
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4900425/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26855020
http://dx.doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000001208
work_keys_str_mv AT amentjaredd costutilityanalysisofthecervicalartificialdiscvsfusionforthetreatmentof2levelsymptomaticdegenerativediscdisease5yearfollowup
AT yangzhuo costutilityanalysisofthecervicalartificialdiscvsfusionforthetreatmentof2levelsymptomaticdegenerativediscdisease5yearfollowup
AT nunleypierce costutilityanalysisofthecervicalartificialdiscvsfusionforthetreatmentof2levelsymptomaticdegenerativediscdisease5yearfollowup
AT stonemarcusb costutilityanalysisofthecervicalartificialdiscvsfusionforthetreatmentof2levelsymptomaticdegenerativediscdisease5yearfollowup
AT leedarrin costutilityanalysisofthecervicalartificialdiscvsfusionforthetreatmentof2levelsymptomaticdegenerativediscdisease5yearfollowup
AT kimkeed costutilityanalysisofthecervicalartificialdiscvsfusionforthetreatmentof2levelsymptomaticdegenerativediscdisease5yearfollowup